Studies of intercessory prayer and healing

Over the past three decades, a number of scientific studies have been undertaken by medical researchers to try to determine if intercessory prayers (or ‘distant therapies’, which include prayer) have any impact on the medical outcomes being prayed for (often recovery from an operation or medical intervention). The tables below summarises a number of these studies, and the conclusions of researchers who have drawn together the results of individual studies. For discussion of these studies, see can prayer assist healing?

Studies which found a positive response to prayer

Date

Study

Size of sample

Result

Reference

1965

The objective efficacy of prayer: A double-blind clinical trail. Joyce and Welldon

A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a Population With Advanced AIDS: Report of a Small Scale Study. F Sicher et al, Geraldine Brush Cancer Research Institute, California

“A statistically significant difference was observed for the effect of IP on the outcome of IVF-ET, though the data should be interpreted as preliminary.” Note: some doubts have been expressed about this study.

“Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice.”

A systematic review of the quality of research on hands-on and distance healing: clinical and laboratory studies. Crawford, Sparber, Jonas, Samueli Institute for Information Biology, Alexandria, Va.

90 studies

The majority (66%) of studies reported positive outcomes and 21% reported negative outcomes. Many methodological problems were found, but overall the studies were considered to be reasonably valid (internal validity of 75%).

A Randomized Trial of the Effects of Remote Intercessory Prayer: Interactions with Personal Beliefs on Problem-Specific Outcomes and Functional Status. Palmer, Katerndahl & Morgan-Kidd, University of Texas

86

“No direct intervention effect on the primary outcomes was found. A marginally significant reduction [in several other outcomes].”